text:
Can I circle to a different runway if cleared for an instrument approach without circling minimums?
Tom is flying a C172S/G on ILS RWY 31 approach to KSNS. He just established on the localizer at 6000, from the SNS-22 DME Arc. He obtained weather from ATIS, wind 240@20G23, ceiling OVC006, visibility 1 1/2 SM. The wind favors RWY 26 but he notice there is no published circling minimum associated with his current ILS RWY 31 approach. He checked other approaches and found RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31 @ KSNS has a published circling minimum of 500-1. He thinks since the two approaches are for the same runway and final leg should be similar, he may use the RNAV 500-1 circling minimum and to land on RWY 26.
X-Wind quick notes:

Wind angle for RWY 31 is 70˚.
Crosswind component for Landing on RWY 31 (18~22 knots)
Maximum demonstrated crosswind for C172S is 15 knots

In this case, what should he do?

A) Continue the ILS RWY 31 straight-in approach and land on RWY 31
B) Advise tower circle south to land on RWY 26. Start to circle upon reaching 500.
C) Change to RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31 @ KSNS (approach without vertical guidance), re-intercept final approach course (WIGGL-IVUVY leg) and circling to RWY 26.
C*) Change to LOC/DME RWY 31 @KSNS (load a new approach) and circle at 560 to RWY 26
D) Once he has the airport in sight, cancel IFR and advise tower enter left base for RWY 26
E) Low-approach flying over RWY 31 until reaching 31-26 intersection, turn left and land on RWY 26.
F) Others, your suggestions.

A C172 can certainly land in a 20 kt crosswind, even though Cessna never demonstrated it.

That is a well asked question!

This looks....startling like a homework question.  Is it?

@JayCarr, this comes from an actual flight, except the actual ceiling is a little higher than described.

The only minimums that apply to any approach are those printed on the plate. Doing anything else is being a test pilot. Minimums are charted based on obstacle clearance, descent gradient, distance from the airport, and a variety of other factors.
The appropriate course of action is to either:

land straight in on 31 and attempt to deal with the crosswind. This would be preferred, in my opinion.
go missed and pick up the GPS Y 31 approach and circle to 25. You can't switch approaches once you're cleared. Given the ~1 mile visibility and low ceilings, this would not be ideal.
divert to your alternate if neither of those works.

Choosing a build-your-own circle with 600' ceilings is reckless - certainly more so than landing with a ~15-20 knot crosswind. There's no guarantee that you'll remain clear of any surface obstacles.

@JonathanWalters If it's really OVC006 you couldn't maintain VFR minimum cloud separation safely, but you could ask for an SVFR clearance. I'm not saying that would be a good idea, but the reported weather would allow it.

Also, can the pilot in question not fly the LOC/DME approach to 31?  Being at 6000 coming off the DME arc on the ILS onto the localizer puts you in the unenviable position of intercepting the glideslope from above...which is worthy of a "go back to square one and try this again" anyway as long as ATC doesn't have other ideas.

No matter what you do, if you choose a new named approach you need to start over.

I wouldn't call them a test pilot...  More of an intrepid explorer who hopefully gets lucky and finds an unobstructed path through the mountains.

@Lnafziger how does 'wreckage' work?

@egid haha, surprisingly well!

Intro
This is a bit of an odd situation, but they have a good reason for doing what they did.
First of all, each instrument approach is designed to be a stand-alone procedure, and the designers consider that you may not have any of the other approach plates when you are flying a particular procedure.  All of the information that you need to fly the approach is included on its individual chart.
Procedure differences
Now, let's look at the ILS and LOC approaches more closely with that in mind.  Very often, these two approaches will be combined into one procedure.  This has a benefit in that if the glideslope fails, you can simply descend to LOC minimums and continue the approach without having to go missed.  In this case though, they are two different procedures.  Why?
Equipment requirements:

The ILS RWY 31 approach requires an ILS receiver, plus ADF or DME (per the note, and is needed to identify the holding point).
The LOC/DME RWY 31 approach requires the LOC receiver and DME.

The designers wanted someone without DME to be able to fly the ILS procedure.  Because of this, the missed approach point is only identified by reaching the decision height (282' MSL in this case) while on the glideslope.  If  you leveled off sooner, using only the equipment that is required to fly the approach, you have no way to identify the missed approach point (or the visual descent point for that matter).  When you reached your self-imposed MDA, you would level off and continue to fly until the MAP if you don't break out.  Wherever that may be....  This is why there are no circling minimums.
The LOC/DME procedure on the other hand requires DME, and specifies that the MAP is at 0.4 DME.  Now you can descend to the specified minimums and continue along with no visual references until you reach the defined MAP, at which point you would fly the published missed approach procedure.  If you are at the MDA and see the airport earlier, then you can circle in accordance with circling procedures if you have been cleared to do so.
The other two procedures require GPS or a VOR receiver, and define the MAP according to the required equipment, so also have circling minimums.
Resolution
Now that we know why they did this, what can we do differently?  Plan ahead.  You should know the weather before you are given an approach (via preflight planning and the ATIS). You should know which approaches are available and which one that you want to fly before ATC assigns it.  If the ATIS states that they are using the ILS RWY 31 approach and you know that you want to land on a different runway, request the specific procedure and runway that you want on initial contact with approach.
As others have said, don't switch procedures in the middle of an approach.  If you can't fly it, go missed and get properly setup / familiar with the procedure and fly the procedure when you are prepared for it.
If you decide to continue with the current procedure, you either land straight in, go missed, or request a contact approach to your preferred runway if you break out in time (this option would most likely require prior coordination since there may be traffic following too closely for them to approve it).  Do not cancel IFR, as this isn't legal without a 1,000 ft. ceiling, and pilots have been violated for that.
The mountains surrounding the area that you are flying in will not be forgiving if you try to get into a contest of wills or rush and make a mistake.
Lastly, make sure that whatever you decide to do has been coordinated with ATC and that they know what you want to do and give you a clearance to do so.  For everybody's well-being, you don't want to surprise anyone by doing something unexpected.

In this scenario, you do in fact have two legal options -- although you must decide if they are safe.
First, you can cancel IFR when you break out on the approach and switch to SVFR (this was mentioned in a comment by @pondlife). You can even coordinate it in advance with the approach controller, and even specify that you intend to do this in the "NOTES" section of the IFR flight plan. Although its legal for airplanes, it is more typically a helicopter procedure, due to heli's lower IFR and SVFR minimums. The process would be to descend on the straight-in approach, and when you can satisfy SVFR requirements, cancel IFR and substitute SVFR. You can then complete the approach to your desired circling runway.
The second option you might have is a contact approach (see below), although I have never heard of anyone actually requesting one in real weather. With the contact approach, you would ask for vectors to the airport, preferably towards Runway 26, at the MVA. If you can see the ground during the vector, and believe you can satisfy the contact parameters, you then request a contact approach, and follow the procedures outlined below.
Both of these scenarios are fairly obscure precisely because they do not afford you the safety margins that a straight-in or even a circling approach does.

Contact Approaches
If conditions permit, pilots can request a contact approach,  which
is  then  authorized  by  the  controller.  A  contact   approach
cannot be initiated by ATC. This procedure may  be  used  instead  of
the  published  procedure  to  expedite   arrival, as long as the
airport has a SIAP the reported ground  visibility is at least 1 SM,
and pilots are able to remain clear  of  clouds  with  at  least  one
statute  mile  flight  visibility   throughout the approach. Some
advantages of a contact  approach  are  that  it  usually  requires
less  time  than  the   published instrument procedure, it allows
pilots to retain  the  IFR  clearance,  and  provides  separation
from  IFR  and   SVFR traffic. On the other hand, obstruction
clearances and  VFR  traffic  avoidance  becomes  the  pilot’s
responsibility.   Unless otherwise restricted, the pilot may find it
necessary  to descend, climb, or fly a circuitous route to the airport
to  maintain cloud clearance or terrain/ obstruction clearance.
The main  differences  between  a  visual  approach  and   a  contact
approach  are:  a  pilot  must  request  a  contact   approach,  while
a  visual  approach  may  be  assigned  by   ATC or requested by the
pilot; and a contact approach may  be approved with 1 mile visibility
if the flight can remain  clear of clouds, while a visual approach
requires the pilot  to  have  the  airport  in  sight,  or  a
preceding  aircraft  to  be   followed, and the ceiling must be at
least 1,000 feet AGL  with at least 3 SM visibility.

Source: Instrument Procedures Handbook, Chapter 4 (Approaches). “Contact Approaches,” p. 4-58 (49 MB PDF)

Since he specified a 600' ceiling, cancelling IFR is actually not a legal option (1000' minimum ceiling is required). A contact approach is a legal option though.

Actually the ceiling is reported OVC006, but you break out at 1000, under Part 91 at least you can still cancel.

Umm, his question doesn't specify that, but if you want to assume that the weather is markedly better than reported in order to support your answer, then I suppose that you can do that, but should add the caveat to your answer.  ;-)

Well, he didn't "specif[y] a 600' ceiling". He transcribed the reported ceiling. I have been grounded at KJCK when the reported ceiling was OVC001, because of a low-lying fog layer that was barely 25ft thick, under clear blue skies. Under Part 91, you can descend to minimums in spite of the reported weather and take a peek.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible. Simply that there was nothing in the question to indicate that it might be the case. I'm suggesting that if you don't want to mislead others who aren't as familiar with the rules, that you should say something along the lines of "you can try the approach, and if the weather conditions are better than reported and above VFR weather minimums, then you could cancel....   As it is now you simply say that it is legal to cancel IFR...

Contact approach can only be used while on an IFR plan, and SVFR must be used for uncontrolled airspace. Example is IFR and IAP to breakout below the ceiling at airport KABC then going SVFR from KABC to nearby KXYZ which has no IAP. Contact approach is most common with broken weather to avoid flying way out the wrong direction on a full procedure. Like arriving from the south and the procedure starts way up north.

No.  And it possibly would be very dangerous to attempt to do so.  Approach procedures are designed the way they are based upon airspace surveys by the FAA.  In general, if it was feasible to circle, the plate would be published with circling minimums and procedures.  The lack there of generally indicates conflicts, be it obstacle and terrain clearances, air traffic, or other hazards which can imperil the approach.

This is most of the answer, you should add that once you break out below the ceiling you have the option to cancel IFR and circle to another runway with a VFR traffic pattern assuming adequate visibility. Other options are a contact approach or special VFR. But all of these use pilot visual avoidance of obstacles.

Circling is a fallback for most approach design, as you said if they don't have circling minima there is almost certainly good reason. Either several very high obstacles within the circling protected area or a problem with going missed. If it is only one obstacle it will say something like "no circling west of 13-31", if the obstacles are near the edges then you may have N/A for cat D but still have cat A circling.


text:
Why does the door slide mode need to be changed after the jetway or stairs are detached?
Why does the door slide mode need to be changed after the jetway or stairs are detached? Does the mode only need to be set when the door is closed?

Don't know if it is a exact duplicate. I think the question is asking exactly when the door should be armed: when the outside stairs/jetbridge is removed, or if it can be done while they are still outside (which is bad, since the slide will impact the stair or jetbridge).

Duplicates to SE are for duplicate questions, not two questions with duplicate answers. If the question is not a duplicate, it's not supposed to be marked as one.

@CGCampbell I happen to disagree, but that's what the voting system is for. Why don't you vote to re-open?  If 5 other people agree with you, it will be so.

@CGCampbell Note that the duplicate template says "This question already has an answer here". So, there is at least some ambiguity in when to VTC as duplicate.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
When to disconnect the A/P on approach in an airliner?
I've looked at the other question asking about when to disconnect the AP on an airliner and I get that it's very situational depending on the pilot and conditions.
I've found I'm too reliant on the autopilot for an auto land in my PC flight simulator. I've been trying to practise manual landings but I'm suffering badly from when I do manage to stay on course with the runway of doing 600-900 fpm landings or floating way too long and I know this isn't down to getting my flare right.
Are there any tricks to improve my landings? I've been trying to start disconnecting the autopilot once I'm on the glide at around 2000ft but I'm finding I'm ending up not lined up with the runway. The only way I usually land well is if I disconnect at around 200ft and even then I usually land hard.
Is it common for pilots to fly in manually the full glide or is it a lot more common the only fly the last few hundred feet manually?

Practise makes perfect. You can't expect to be able to fly an airplane perfectly after a month of playing with a desktop flight simulator.

It's also much more difficult to land a PC sim than a real plane.

What speed are you at on short final? If you are too fast it makes it extremely difficult to flare properly.

Speed is usually as close to VREF as I can, usually approach speed is reasonable within 5 mph of my intended approach speed, only exception is wheen ATC on VATsim force me into a fast approach I sometimes find it difficult to slow down quick enough.

You are experiencing what real world pilots also experiences as they level up: unable to keep up with the plane.
You are unable to keep up with the plane because your mind is behind the plane. You are doing what you'd do if you're flying a Cessna: you react after you see. In a jet, things happen very fast. A large aircraft, like a B737, is also heavy and the controls are not as responsive. That is why it became impossible to you.
To fly high-performance aircraft, your mind has to stay ahead of the plane. Anticipate what will happen. Do not react to what is happening. If you only react to something that has happened while flying a jet, you're already too late.
Technique-wise, you should focus more on the attitude indicator (AI). The AI is the only instrument which tells you the future. Altitude tells you the present, and the vertical speed indicator tells you the past. These instruments let you verify if 2 seconds ago you did correctly. To predict what the plane is going to do in the next second, you need the attitude indicator. Say the plane is now pitched zero degrees, and it is descending too fast. First, make up your mind about the new pitch angle, say 2 degrees up. Then, look at the attitude indicator and adjust pitch to 2 degrees up. Only after that, you give the VSI a quick scan to verify your descend rate is indeed reduced. Do not adjust pitch by looking at the VSI. It will never work.
You may also be too ambitious by attempting to fly airliners in the sim before you have a solid piloting skill. Move up progressively. Fly on small planes first. Practice maneuvers, like steep turns. As your skill improves, slowly move up to faster and larger aircraft.

this. also: a common mistake is to start disregarding crosswind when at low altitudes flying a jet; after disconnect it's common for beginners to turn nose heading to rwy heading. Also a common thing is to give input directly after disengagement even though the plane is perfectly trimmed, for some reason

@user Many autopilot systems do not fully trim the aircraft which may necessitate control input directly after disengagement.

While the pitch change technique you describe is generally good form, it is worth noting the following 1) It is unclear whether the simulated aircraft has a regular VSI or some type of IVSI. An IVIS will be far less prone to lag errors in wings-level flight than what you suggest here. 2) The attitude indicator alone tells you little to nothing about the future. But if the aircraft displays a flight path vector, that information does match what you describe, i.e. the actual direction aircraft is currently moving.

@JonathanWalters the AI technique is one of the things I learnt for transitioning to high performance aircraft. Flight path vectors are relatively rare, only found in military jets and some airliners with HUDs. A flight director would be useful, but if one's mind is not ahead of the plane, he will end up chasing it.

@kevin Many turboprops and business jets have flight path vectors, such as the aircraft I fly. Unless I am missing something, the avionics in your profile pic have a FPV.

Unless you are doing a full Cat III autoland approach, you can disconnect whenever it suits you or the company SOP. This might be at 100 feet on a Cat II approach. Older aircraft, usually only Cat I, can be twitchy on the ILS and passengers could be uncomfortable therefore it might be a good idea to disconnect at glide slope intercept. Us old stick and rudder guys would even disconnect at top of descent and hand fly down to the landing. Most modern airliners can be left on autopilot until visual contact with the runway is established, but over reliance on automation is a killer, see below.
Note: It is essential to maintain hand flying skills and not be reliant on automation as was demonstrated in the fatal crash in San Francisco.
Asiana Flight 214

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does the Rutan Voyager use canards?
Can anyone point me to why Burt Rutan's Voyager is a canard?
In other words, what reasoning could be behind it. What problems Burt Rutan might have tried to solve by using Canard configuration in this specific aircraft
and why those problems may not be solvable or less feasible in a conventional configuration?
For  comparison I would prefer to use predator or global hawk.
I believe this is because noticeable CG shift during flight and possibly has some advantage in relation to dynamic responses.
But I would like to get a second thought from you guys.
PS: English is not my mother language so apologies in advance if Im not clear enough. Unfortunately the answers I've got so far are either not very well thought or incorrect.

Possible duplicate of Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration?

This isn't really an explanation, but I think the true answer is "Because Burt Rutan likes designing canard airplanes."

The canard is a design which stabilizes in front but also adds lift, whereas elevators at the back actually subtract lift.  As the Voyager needed to take energy efficiency to the extreme, this would be a prime design choice.  His motivation may be in the book written about the Voyager, but a significant number of his designs were canards.

As mentioned, the Prandtl optimized lift curve favors canard configuration with high aspect ratio wings. The long, heavy fuel booms needed mechanical connection other than the wings for which the canard configuration was better. Avoiding tail to ground impact on takeoff and landing with minimum weight and drag worked out better this way.

Further, Burt Rutan has no bias against conventional non-canard design and has done many (e.g. the new StratoLifter, etc.). But he's eminently qualified to evaluate conventional vs. canard vs. tailless biplane vs. tripteron for any design to pick what works best, having excelled with all of those.

Canard Stall tend to be self correcting and often less unstable than a more conventional design.  For long range. fairly slow flights this could be an advantage.


text:
How secure is an airplane on the ground whilst passengers are boarding the aircraft?
On my recent flight to Ibiza, as I and the other passengers were boarding, there were many occasions where I could see right into the cockpit as the pilots and cabin crew were communicating back and forth for whatever pre-flight checks they were conducting. Being near the front of the queue at the gate, I was one of the first seated, the 10-20 minutes it took for the rest of the passengers to board was the time I refer to when I say I was able to see into the cockpit.
With it being my first flight in quite a few years, understandably I was extremely nervous. From the open cockpit to the smell of burning as the engines spooled up...
If we ignore terrorism, what is stopping a drunken passenger from, instead of turning right when they board at the front loading door, turn left and take a few steps into the cockpit, and if they were able to get into the cockpit, assuming they know absolutely nothing about the operation of a plane besides that pushing that pushing the throttles forward = more thrust = plane moves (faster), what damage could they do with a plane parked at a jetway or a plane parked out on the tarmac that requires a shuttle to drop passengers to the plane in order to board it.
If we introduce terrorism into the mix, what is stopping a group of strong men from forcing their way into the open cockpit past 1 or 2 cabin crew?

In my opinion much of the "security" is pure theater.  A lot of the security is there for psychological reasons...to make you feel secure.  I have no faith in the security theater we deal with as passengers, at least in the USA.

In your scenario, where the drunk turns into the cockpit during boarding & pushes up the throttles... nothing happens at all.  The engines aren't running while passengers are being boarded, and the starting process takes enough time that even if he hit the "start button" & then pushed the throttles forward, nothing much would happen then either.  Having the drunken passenger throw up on you is truly a greater risk than this particular scenario.

Hi.  Welcome to Aviation.SE.  I'm curious - "understandably I was extremely nervous" - it's not understandable to me, since I know that when I board a commercial flight, the safest part of my journey has just begun.  Why would you be "extremely nervous"?

To put this into perspective, the last passengers killed on a UK operated flight died in 1989.  Since then, approximately 36,000 people have been killed on the roads.  So, the understandable nervousness would be the car or taxi journey to the airport.

@Simon: Indeed, but fear is not rational, else everybody would love roller coaster and number 13, and vertigo wouldn't exist. And on the other hand, nobody would play at lottery either.

@Simon I dont think I'm alone when I say that flying can be a nerve racking experience. The thought in the back of my mind was that "something could go wrong".

@mins Thank you, I find it hard to believe that a person honestly couldn't understand why somebody would be nervous boarding and flying in an aircraft.

I don't understand what your question is. How secure is the aircraft from what? What is stopping passengers from forcibly entering the cockpit and doing what? The aircraft is parked and the engines are not running. Any damage would become an insurance problem, not a security problem. Are you assuming that passengers would ask for a pushback, start the aircraft, taxi to the runway, and takeoff?

@Ksery I only asked out of genuine curiosity. I know the fear exists but that is very different to understanding why. I empathise with you and meant no disrespect, but it is genuinely not something I understand. My way of thinking about it is very simple. I am much safer in a plane than in a car, so much so that the maths is not worth doing. I am not nervous getting into a car, so why would I be nervous boarding a flight? I don't personally know anyone with any fear of flying, hence my curiosity. I wish there was something I could do to help you.

@mins Yes, but is the irrationality itself that I struggle with.  So, I love roller coasters, get really annoyed when people leave 13 off something, don't suffer from vertigo and don't play lotteries!  Blackjack, yes, but that's because with careful selections I can increase my odds beyond 50/50 ;)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, answerable question to me. Instead of getting all excited about the author's confession of nervousness, why not actually read, and try to answer, what is being asked? The question could be improved to make it a better question, but then so could many other, equally reasonable questions.

@DanieleProcida Well vote to re-open. I  happen to disagree with you, and it has nothing to  do with nervousness. What's to stop someone reaching in through my open car window and hitting me with a hammer?  What's to stop the driver of the train I will take on Thursday overriding the brakes and slamming into the station concourse?  What  stops the guy coming the other way round the corner on the wrong side of the road, slamming into me -  ad infinitum.  If there is a concrete answer, then it can be little more than "nothing".

@Simon I would vote to re-open it, if I could. But the questions are there, as asked, and clear, and answerable. If it's important for security in flight to have the cockpit doors locked, what's different about when the plane is on the ground? Presumably there is something different: what is it? How much damage could be caused by someone with momentary access to the controls of an airliner at such a time? If something prevents the possibility of thus causing serious harm or damage, what it is it?

@DanieleProcida Yes this is precisely what I was asking. What prevents someone from gaining access to the controls? Are there electronic locks in place preventing the fbw transmission of control inputs? What prevents somebody from accessing an empty plane etc? I wanted to completely reword my question but I thought it would be a bit strange to have all these comments beneath what would've essentially been a different but more precise question

I agree that this is an answerable question. The answer as to what's stopping them from causing the plane to move is the engines aren't running, wheels are chocked, etc. Not everyone knows that the engines are not running

Those guys would gain no more than they'd gain if they hijacked the bus taking you to the airport.
If fact they'd gain less as they'd have nowhere to go and there's a lot more (armed) police at the airport to take them down than there is in some remote place they could drive that bus to.
The greatest risk to airliners isn't people forcing their way into the cockpit on the ground who are among the passengers waiting to board.
It's in the ground crew who can (at least in theory) bring aboard almost anything they wish (including bombs) with very little oversight (in fact this has happened in the past).
And there security has been seriously tightened (and it needed to be) over the decades, making that scenario far harder.
I won't say impossible, because nothing is impossible as long as there is a human factor involved anywhere in the chain, but bloody hard.

AFAIK, ground crew goes through security like everyone else - even security goes through security.

@Sanchises in theory yes, but that wasn't the case until quite recently. In practice, not so much. There are a lot of doors that simply open into secure areas using an employee pass. Not everyone has a pass that'll open it, but they exist. And vehicle gates (I've observed them) are often open with "known" cars and trucks just waved through. Heck, flocks of ramp workers are waved through when just holding up an employee pass (from a distance long enough the guard can't see anything except the colour, someone waving a coloured piece of cardboard could get through).

It is a plane which transports passengers (>= 99% sane people) and a regular workplace for the crew, not a prison. If you are afraid of an open cockpit-door at ground, you should try to calm down and enjoy the journey. Life gives opportunities and risks. In my case I would always use the opportunity for a brief distant look at the cockpit and saying 'hello' to a pilot (if outside the cockpit and greeting passengers or chatting with the cabin crew), maybe even taking a picture if it is not disturbing.
Despite that, acpilot is right, security is mostly mere theatre.


text:
Where can I find ATC Guidelines for handling Airport Incidents?
Immediately after an airport incident (e.g. a crash, runway overrun, fire etc.) it is fascinating to hear in recordings the ATC handle various duties so deftly . e.g. Ground vehicles, Fire, Go arounds, the actual aircraft involved, police, medics, tugs, closing runways or airports etc.
Is there any training material on this? I want to read more (My day job is in Chemical Plants & I'm thinking there is stuff we could learn from Aviation Incident Response Procedures).
I imagine these incidents are rare so any given controller doesn't get much by way of prior experience. So the best way to readiness would be via learning from past incidents or guidelines etc.
NTSB reports & past ATC tapes do help a lot but has anyone compiled these learnings into advisory documents? Just like pilots use checklists for difficult situations are there any similar ATC checklists?

Late to the party, but good on you for wanting to learn from other industries!

@FreeMan Thanks! Its more fun that way too. :)

I'll answer from US ATC perspective having worked ATC at 3 different airports. First, I'll describe the alerts, then I'll describe training
As with all things, each airport has different procedures for how they handle emergencies or accidents. For each airport, the airport operator and the ATC Tower will come up with numerous Letter's of Agreement for how they want to handle things from lighting to emergency services. My first airport had 2 alert conditions, Orange and Red. Orange was go to standby positions, something is inbound requesting emergency services to be ready in case something happens. These are relatively common. Red was an actual accident/crash.
The more common alerts are broken up into 3 categories I, II, and III. Alert I alerts are usually, a heads up to the crews to just be ready, but not go to the runway. Alert II are go to the standby positions, somebody's inbound with an issue and services are needing to go there. When this alert is declared, often as soon as the plane lands the runway is closed automatically until the airport inspects it(making sure no debris fell off the aircraft on landing). And Alert III is an actual crash. Most of the times, this is an immediate closure of the airport. This is due to the emergency services focusing on the accident and can't be available if something else were to happen on the field. Note, super large airports can have enough spare capacity to keep portions of the field still operating, depending on what all they have and how their command/control works.
Training wise, it's often just on the job training and usually the light emergencies, where people just need to get back or gear stuck or similar non-crash emergencies. Usually in the course of a controller's training at their facility they'll get a couple of these and know how to react. There are discussions of past issues as well, when there's time and resources available to do these types of discussions. Full on crashes, as stated are rare, so likely the first time a controller has to deal with it, they'll have seen small issues in the past to help prepare them.

Great insights. Is there any FAA guidance on these topics? Did you run simulated crashes for testing response?

No simulations, though some airports might have them in place. There's numerous FARs and Advisory Circulars on what's required and how airports are to deal with emergencies, but for controllers and their training, I'm not aware of anything in particular.


text:
What regulations or procedures address runway-taxiway interference for aircraft with large wingspan?
Are there cases of airports where a large wingspan aircraft on a taxiway can interfere with another aircraft on the runway?
Or do the airport design parameters take care that the largest wingspan aircraft on a taxiway will still never infringe on a runway's safety zone?
How about taxiway-to-taxiway interference? Is that precluded by design itself for worst case combinations or can there be cases where two large wingspan aircraft on two taxiways may interfere?
If so, is it the pilot's duty primarily or the tower's  to ensure that interference does not occur due to conflicting wingspans of aircraft on different taxiways?
Are taxiways with potential for such interference separately indicated on the airport taxi charts?

Yes this can and has happened with what is considered a "super-jumbo" like the A380 or the 747-8 (Aircraft Design Group VI aircraft).
The FAA must issue waivers to airports to legally accept these types of aircraft due to spacing rules that are in place. A lot of larger airports built quite a few years ago didn't have the foresight to handle aircraft of this size, so special precautions have to be taken when handling those types of aircraft. For class VI aircraft, an airport must have taxiways that are 100' wide and runways that are 200' wide. Note though that an A380's wingspan is 262', so even on a 100' taxiway, the wings hang over 81' on either side.
Usually ground controllers get special training to handle the larger aircraft and maintain separation, but its even a problem for the ground crew before talking to ground control because there are quite a few notable incidents of aircraft being backed into other aircraft.
Here are some interesting reads:
Miami International A380 Preparations
Los Angeles LAX A380 Operational Plan

wouldn't that be more than 80' overhang for the A380 on a 100' taxiway?

@PeterKämpf Yes! For some reason I did the math with 230 not 262.

Incidentally, the new 777s will also have a Group VI wingspan when the wings are unfolded, but the wingtips will fold up so that it can park in a Group V space.

That video is disturbing! The plane that gets spun around is still a huge machine, and it gets tossed aside like yesterday's salad...

Airport design standards try to to take into account the operation of airliners with large wingspan. Basically, the standards like the FAA Advisory circular 50/5300-13A - Airport Design and ICAO Aerodrome design and operations require certain minimum separation distances between the runway/taxiways based on the wingspan of the aircraft being operated there.
The aircrafts are separated into different groups based on their wingspan. For example, the following table is from the FAA AC 150/5300:

Table from FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design.
The ICAO definitions are more or less similar. Based on the most demanding dimension (like wingspan) of the aircraft expected to be operated in the airport, the  airport facilities can be determined. For example, the minimum recommended separation distances can be determined from the following table:

Table from FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design.
In case the airports with lesser separation distances (as is the case with many older airports) , the aircraft can still be operated if it is found that the separation doesn't affect the normal operations. From ICAO Aerodrome design manual:

Taxiway minimum separation distances
3.8.7 The separation distance between the centre line of a taxiway and the centre line of a runway, the centre line of a parallel taxiway or an object shall not be less than the appropriate dimension specified in Table 3-1, except that it may be permissible to operate with lower separation distances at an existing aerodrome if an aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation distances would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of aeroplanes.

Another point to note is that the dimensions of aircraft also affect the airport aprons, building separation etc.

One of the most important problems during the induction of A380 was that the aircraft, with a wingspan of ~262' is at the extreme end of the dimensions considered for airport design; in fact, the airport dimensions was an important design consideration in the A380. Still, it was expected that the A380 operation will be severely restricted because of its dimensions.
To this end, the A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) was formed to study the capabilities of airports to handle the superjumbo. It identified airports that can accommodate the A380 during normal operations, and those airports which were considered for planned alternates for A380 (in which case, the A380 is required not to disrupt the normal operations).
The group found that the operations of A380 in runway/taxiway would affect other traffic due to the huge wingspan of A380. From the draft document, which considered the ICAO standards:

e) Taxiing of an A380 on a parallel taxiway, runway – taxiway separation is 107.5 meters,
The A380 wingtip will infringe the runway strip with a distance of 7.5 meters. Operations on the runway should therefore temporarily be halted until the A380 has left the parallel taxiway.
f) Taxiing of an A380 on a parallel taxiway, runway – taxiway separation is 182.5 meters,
The A380 wingtip will infringe the runway strip with a distance of 7.5 meters1. Take-off operations can be operated as normal but instrument landings may temporarily be halted until the A380 has left the parallel taxiway. Non instrument landings however could be operated normally

In the end, this required the regulatory authorities to give waiver for operation of A380 in airports not meeting the spacing requirements. This is not unique for A380. Boeing also considered operations from existing airports for 747-8 which has a larger wingspan compared to 747-400. The result is either a waiver or changing the operational procedure; Boeing notes:

In some cases, airports can accommodate the airplane on the airport movement areas through the use of operational procedures. For example, when a 747-8 is taxiing, operations on a parallel taxiway that is built to less than the required separation standards may be limited to airplanes with a smaller wingspan in order to maintain adequate separation clearances.

Basically, Boeing concludes that operating 747-8 is possible in all airports operating 747-400 (whose dimensions are used in planning separation distances in a number of airports) by getting a waiver after carrying out a study or a change in operating procedures.

Aircraft manufacturers are aware of the issues due to separation requirements as the wingspans get ever larger. For example, Boeing is offering an option of folding wingtips in the next version of 777.

Well, runway-taxiway interference would not exist because the airports are designed with enough buffer space in between to keep the aircraft separated. The only place that that might occur is when at least two of those aircraft land at an airport that is not designed for them (Like that would happen anyways).
Taxiway-taxiway interference is very similar to the one above, and only very rare occasions would have that occurring.
Basic answer then: No, it would not occur. However, if need be, the airport does issue warnings and prohibitions on what airplanes can use a certain taxiway like on the top right corner on the diagram of KATL Airport

So, your answer is basically, "No, no, that can't happen. No airport would do that. By the way, here's an example of an airport which does it. Oh, and it happens to be the busiest airport in the world."

"Well, runway-taxiway interference would not exist because the airports are designed with enough buffer space in between to keep the aircraft separated" Not sure you can make that claim since some airports like JFK were designed in the 1950's and do not have wide enough taxiways to meet some of the modern jumbos and super jumbos.

@DavidRicherby haha, I think what he meant was that an incursion would not occur because there are rules in place to keep large aircraft off of taxiways where they could cause an incursion with an adjacent runway or taxiway. It wasn't the best wording, though.


text:
Can perfect turn coordination automation be achieved by linking rudder to aileron?
I was reading about the ERCO aircraft which apparently has a rudder-aileron linkage system that enables co-ordinated turns without the need for explicit rudder inputs. I've heard of Piper's having bungee cords for the same purpose.
Two questions:

Does such a physical linkage lead to perfectly co-ordinated turns under all conditions? Or is it only a coarse approximation & a skilled pilot can execute a better turn?
Why don't a lot more civil aircraft automate this co-ordinated turn feature? Is it because it is hard to automate or more that one wants the pilot to retain the ability to slip when necessary & execute un-coordinated turns sometimes?

Well, even if the latter were true, since 99% of all turns are co-ordinated one could just offer an override for the automated co-ordination feature, right?
A physical linkage is rather crude, but with a servo / feedback loop wouldn't it be possible to entirely eliminate the rudder pedals?

The mechanical linkage from control column (aileron) only addresses one of the things that affect coordination, the adverse yaw. It is the most significant one, but not the only. Other reasons you may need some rudder deflection in coordinated flight include:

Compensating for P-factor. At high angle of attack (slow flight) the propeller blade going up sees a lower angle of attack than the propeller blade going down, creating asymmetry of thrust. The effect depends on engine power and speed, making it too complex to compensate by just mechanical linkages.
The rotating propeller slipstream also creates asymmetrical force on the rudder, requiring compensation depending on engine power and speed.
In tail-draggers, the propeller precession creates rather significant yawing moment as the tail lifts off that needs to be connected using rudder, otherwise the plane could ground-loop. Tail-draggers generally require active control by rudder, because they are directionally unstable on the ground.
In multi-engine aircraft, asymmetric thrust in the event of engine failure. For multi-engine aircraft this is the most significant yawing moment that the rudder must be able to compensate.
And last but not least, rudder is needed to damp the Dutch roll. I've never heard that mentioned as problem in utility aircraft, but it is a big problem for transport aircraft and a reason why they usually come with a yaw damper.

The yaw damper is a feedback controller that monitors the lateral acceleration and other parameters (yaw and roll rate) and applies rudder to damp the dutch roll, and also to provide coordination to turns flown by autopilot where usually the autopilot directly commands the ailerons and rudder is left up the the yaw damper. So yes, providing coordination is possible, but not via simple mechanical linkages. And of course the rudder pedals still need to be there so uncoordinated flight is possible for any of the reasons already listed in Ron Beyer's answer.

For the compensation described in your bullet points #1 and #2 (P-factor / slipstream) is the compensation rudder provided by continuous assymetric input via pedals all through the flight duration (that sounds fatigue inducing) or is there some other way to provide a sustained assymetric rudder input? Something like a trim tab / trim wheel?

@curious_cat, well, both effects are significant at slow speed, not high. But yes, rudder (and aileron) usually have trim as well.

The ERCO Ercoupe does not have rudder pedals, and even arm-less pilot Jessica Cox used one to get a pilots license.
The biggest problem that I see with designs like that is when you want to do an uncoordinated maneuver like a cross-wind landing using the wing-low technique. This requires you to turn the controls into the wind (wing low) and then use the rudder in the opposite direction to keep you aligned with the runway. Even crab-style cross-wind landings require you to kick in the rudder to straighten up before touching the pavement. The Ercoupe's gear is designed to handle landing while crabbed, but its a bit rough for the occupants.
Another operation that I like to use opposite rudder for is emergency descents. By tilting the aircraft into the dive and using the rudder to keep you going in the right direction you can achieve a pretty decent sink rate without going "into the red", especially in rough air.
Another issue I can think of is steering. Tricycle GA aircraft use rudder pedals to steer the aircraft and caster-wheel or tail-dragger aircraft require differential braking and rudder authority. The Ercoupe actually uses the control wheel for taxi, which makes most pilots laugh :).

This still does not explain why there is no linkage that would adjust the neutral point to provide coordination, so force on pedals would only be used to achieve uncoordinated flight. And does not address how well the mechanical linkage actually provides coordination in the first place.

Yeah, good info but the question wasn't answered.


text:
How frequently are airline pilots switching between aircraft types (e.g. Airbus, Boeing, etc)?
Are pilots at Airlines typically assigned to fly a single Type in a given month / year or do they get switched routinely between multiple types of aircraft as per scheduling convenience?
i.e. Is it common to, say, fly a B-747 & then return flying a B-777 etc.
How about more extreme changes like switching between Boeings & Airbuses or Turbojet / Turboprop etc.?
I guess that begs the question whether pilots typically are certified & current across multiple Types? How common is this?
I'm looking more for comments about what is operating practice across airlines rather than a hard rule, which I guess does not exist.

This one might be similar http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1784/how-many-type-ratings-are-pilots-allowed-to-hold-at-once but they do have some difference.

Airline pilots are typically only certified and current on one type. It is rare for a pilot to be certified and current on multiple types because they must do re-current training and check rides for each type in order to remain current and legal. The extra cost for training and check rides would not make financial sense to an airline trying to be competitive with other airlines.

But there are various different aircraft with common type ratings, yes? (I'm guessing something like the Airbus A320 series and, as I recall, some of the larger Boeings.)

@DavidRicherby Yes, some airlines do 777 and 787. I think there is also the 747-400 and the 747-8 ones too.

How long does it typically take to switch from one type to another? e.g. the training, certification, sim time, check rides etc? Are airlines continuously changing the type profile of their pilot body?

@curious_cat It depends on the aircraft. Some need less time because of similarities (Boeing widebodies vs Boeing single-isles). Airlines have groups of pilots that are certified for their own aircraft, so they don't do mass-migrations of pilots to different craft.

An airline can be approved to treat A330 and A350 as the same type. The Airbus Cross Crew Qualification and Mixed Fleet Flying arrangements allow crew to regularly fly two Airbus FBW families (A330/A350, A340, A320, A380). A330-A340 MFF was very common, A320-A330 was a draw to smaller/LCC operators growing into international.

A pilot at an airline usually flies one type of aircraft at one time, but can hold many type ratings at the same time. There are common type ratings between similar aircraft (Some versions of the 777 and 787 as well as the A320 family). With Airbus planes besides the A380, they require a little less transition time between the types because they are made to be very similar. The A320 has a common type rating as well as the A350 XWB and A330; Boeing has the 767/777 and 787 type ratings from what I hear. You can't have a common type rating between Boeings and Airbuses because they have totally different cockpit and control configurations.

I guess only drone pilots can fly two planes at one time - I think you mean something slightly different.

@MSalters I said they can hold multiple type ratings at the same time, not fly mutiple planes at the same time.

Interesting. Thanks. So in the cases of common type ratings does currency on one aircraft e.g. 777 imply automatic currency on the others in the same type rating as well? e.g. Say a pilot holds a Type Rating for a 777  and has been flying those can he be suddenly assigned to a 787 without a check ride etc?

@curious_cat They have to complete a few requirements to be able to have a common type rating between the 777 and 787, but it is not a huge step. But once they have the type rating, they can fly both.

At my airline only the Chief Pilot is qualified on both the 777 and 787 and there is no provision for a "short course".  Dual type rating requirements will vary by country, or airline, so you can not generalize

@MikeSowsun Do you have any pointers to country specific rules about dual type rating? Is there official FAA etc. guidelines on this?

No, sorry, I have no country specifics and I don't know what the FAA says about it.

Note that A320-family is a single type; the difference between A318 and A321 is similar to that between B737-700 and B737-900.


text:
Does a stopper (chock) really prevent the plane from moving?
In Crime-Thriller movie American Made (2017), Barry put this stopper in front and in the back of the plane's front wheel. Do wheel chocks really prevent an airplane from moving?

I can confirm that you can’t pull your plane out of the hangar if you have forgotten to remove the chocks. Lots of GA pilots can attest to the fact that it takes a lot of power to jump over the chocks.

Safety note: if you drive a tug across the ramp at night keep a sharp eye out for errant chocks. If you hit one with a front wheel and you don't have a really firm grip on the steering wheel the wheel that hit it will stop, the steering wheel will be ripped out of your hands and spin about 4 revolutions in half a second. If you happen to have a thumb inside the wheel you're in for a world of hurt.

@JScarry: Yes, it depends on exactly what is meant by "prevent".  Keep the plane from rolling while the engine is off, sure.  Take more than the little bit of throttle you'd normally use for ground ops, yes.  Would that little chock in the picture actually stop the plane from moving if the pilot really wanted to?  I doubt it.

Wheel chocks are used to prevent accidental movement, generally on airplanes. They are placed in addition to setting the brakes, if present.
On smaller planes, chocks are used to prevent the airplane to roll, and tie downs are used to prevent the airplane to stay on the ground and not take off on its own. Using both the chocks and tie downs will ensure that airplane is secured and will not move, under normal conditions of course. Other safety measures are discussed in this answer.

Definitely, having seen the chocks that stop much larger aircraft from rolling these definitely would stop them


text:
Can one purchase a Cessna 182JT-A although it has not yet been certified?
To the best of my knowledge, Cessna's 182JT-A has not yet been certified. At least I couldn't find on Google any indication that it has. Lots of items that certification is "imminent" but no real facts.
Yet, I see them for sale and YouTube has videos of them flying. Am I correct in believing that it is possible to buy one and then operate it as an experimental aircraft?

The FAA's Type Certificate for the 182 was last updated on Dec. 20, 2011, leading me to believe it is not certificated in the USA at this time. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/94AA23D4EBDA7EB78625796D006AAEFD?OpenDocument

I poked around and saw that they sold one in New Zealand (which doesn't need FAA certification).  Everything else I've seen where they are for sale, it looks like they are selling production slots, even brokers are selling a date you get the plane, not necessarily an airplane from their own inventory.  If you buy one from Cessna in the US, it looks like they give you a date for delivery, but not like there is a show room full of airplanes and you fly one off the lot. I can't find proof, but I don't believe the litigation-averse Cessna would sell you one under the experimental class.

I have a Cessna 182 and always stop in the Cessna booth at Oshkosh every year.  The 182JT as of the end of July was still classified as experimental but they were expecting a certification within the next few months.  My guess is that it should be any day.  You can, however, buy one now - you just won't get it until it's officially released (prebuy).  They do have to have models flying to demonstrate safety, but they are Cessna owned airplanes.

@ScottJohnson I corresponded with via email with the Cessna dealership in Hillsboro, OR a couple of weeks ago. They had no idea when it was going to be certified, but I got the impression that they weren't expecting it to happen anytime soon. Interestingly, while Cessna still shows the JT-A on the their website as one of their products, they have taken it off the range map accessible at http://cessna.txtav.com/aircraft-range-tool.

They did have an engine out failure about a year ago which set everything back a bit.  They've had it at Osh a couple of years now.  Two years ago they were saying around the end of '14 beginning of '15.  Last summer, they were saying months.  If you're really curious, I would talk to the manufacturer in Kansas.  Dealers really aren't part of the FAA approval process...
I wouldn't read too much into the range calculator.  I would imagine that they would be adjusting numbers numerous times before release as they get more data.

I hope that is the case. However, the JT-A was in the range calculator a couple of months ago.


text:
How will flying through mountains cause altimeter problems?
There is an old warning on mountain flying that wind flowing through a narrow valley will cause Venturi effect, thus causing a drop in static pressure and making our little Cessna fly lower than indicated, possibly hitting some hidden mountain peak. I'm certain I know the answer to this one, but I'd like to hear someone explain it better, so here is my question:

You fly a Cessna 172 level at FL50 (pressure altitude) with a huge
  40kts headwind. You need to traverse a narrow valley passing between
  two huge peaks on either side. Will your airplane fly at a constant
  true altitude in a straight line, or will the Venturi effect caused by
  the wind and the valley cause our aircraft to sink while passing
  through the valley?

.

I'd be interested to know which valley/mountain system?

If you try to fly through a mountain you'll have a lot of problems, not just with the altimeter ;)

You basically answered the question yourself already.
Venturi states: the sum of pressures in a system stays constant.
The system is the valley and the pressures are the air (static pressure) within the valley and the wind flowing through it (dynamic pressure).
Static Pressure + Dynamic Pressure = Total Pressure
If the wind flows faster, we got higher dynamic pressure. Since the sum stays constant the static pressure has to fall as a consequence.
Of course, then, all pressure levels shrink under lower static air pressure as they would do under cold temperatures. Flying at a constant pressure level results in following these shrinking levels and eventually end up at a lower true altitude.
That's the main reason why your true altitude is lower than your indicated.
If you knew the actual static pressure in the valley, you could adapt your altitude by the rule of thumb: per 1hPa: 30ft
So answering your question: if the venturi effect reduces static air pressure in the valley, the above stated applies.

From my understanding of this, the Venturi effect created in the valley will drop temperatures much like the Venturi effect causes temp drops in your carb. which you know will change pressure (increase) and thus change altimeter reading. Since you are flying at a relatively low altitude you will be affected by the change.

If the pressure increased, then the altimeter would under read and the aircraft would fly higher than the indicated altitude?

Primarily, the venturi effect causes a drop in pressure at the peak, proportional to wind speed, causing the altimeter to over-read (show higher than actual) compromising vertical clearance.


text:
Should a pre-flight inspection spot snakes on a plane?
In January 2013, a python hitched a ride on plane, unfortunately exposed on the wing after getting sucked out of its hiding place.
Qantas 191 is a Cairns → Port Moresby flight on a DHC-8-400, probably the first of the day.
Having done walk-arounds for a Cherokee, I would like to think that I wouldn't allow such an event to happen on a small plane.  On the other hand, I realize that it would be impossible to do a thorough inspection on, say, an Airbus A380.
What is a typical preflight inspection checklist for a Dash 8 or similar plane?  Would it have included, for example, a visual inspection of the flaps that would have allowed the snake to have been spotted?

What makes you think the snake had spots?  Yuk Yuk Yuk...  Seriously, where was the snake hiding before takeoff?  The preflight inspection does not require you to disassemble the airplane.  Should it have been caught?  Ideally, yes.  In the real world, it depends....

Comparing the photos with the diagram, I'd say it was in a flap.

I'm not familiar with the Dash-8 checklist, but I doubt that "Check that thing for snakes!" is an item!

I always check for snakes during preflight.

@SpongeBob, a quick look around for Samuel L Jackson in a bad wig or Bruce Willis in a white T-shirt is also a good idea

And cats, am I right? :)

Given the location of the snake from the photos/video in the article and the height of the wing/engine assembly (as shown below) I think it's entirely possible to miss this critter in preflight.  A visual inspection of the control surfaces is certainly a part of the preflight, but unlike on a small aircraft (say a Piper Cherokee or Cessna 172) you will probably not be getting "up close and personal" with the control surfaces - you would need a ladder to to so, and the sort of in-depth examinations that would require getting up on that ladder would probably normally be performed by maintenance personnel.
A pilot doing a preflight might get up on a ladder if they noticed something amiss (say a snake obviously hanging from the wing), but on a simple pre-filght visual inspection from the ground this unfortunate critter could easily be missed - particularly if it was curled up tightly in a small space as snakes are wont to do, and didn't have its body hanging out where it could be seen.


text:
Can the FAA stop the municipality owned airport from closing down?
I live in Wheeling IL. Our town owns the municipal airport there. Most of the residences here want to close down the airport. Can the FAA stop us from closing the airport?

Isn't KPWK co-owned by Wheeling & Prospect Heights?

Reference the lengthy, ongoing battle over closing SMO

Did the airport accept FAA improvement funds in the past? If so there are stipulations that the airport must be kept open for a certain duration (usually 50 years or forever).

Frequently, municipal airports are created and/or operated with funds granted by the Federal Government that contain contractual obligations that the airport remain operating until a particular date or certain conditions.
I don't know about that particular airport.
Even if a municipality owns the airport free-and-clear without contractual obligations to operate it, the FAA does have a lengthy process for shutting down an airport.
Since you're in Wheeling, you may be familiar with Meigs Field, which was abruptly closed against FAA rules, leaving airplanes stranded, charts incorrect, and airplanes attempting to land at an airport that didn't even have a functional runway anymore!

Closures of airports are only impeded by the FAA (or other agencies) when there are contractual obligations.  Many airports receive federal grants which provide for portions of runway development and even snowplows to keep the runways clear in the winter. However that grant money is restricted in how it, and things paid for with it, can be used.
So for example, a town owned airport which gets funds for a snowplow for the airport with federal monies, cannot use that snowplow and truck in general highway service.  There are exceptions, for example, in disaster relief, and with FAA permission for certain circumstances.
A nearby privately owned airport, which received a large amount of federal aid, was discovered to have their airport equipment (trucks, excavators,  bulldozers, etc.) parked at a family member's construction business, 35 miles away. This put their federal funding in jeopardy and caused assessment of fines and sanctions by the FAA.
In the case of publicly owned, federally funded airports, there are often political forces at play, which can modify the outcome. Similarly, well connected owners of an airport who use the airport facilities and equipment for non-aviation purposes (like federally funded hangers for storage of boats and RVs) may not suffer the expected sanctions and loss of federal funding.  Politics and business creates another vector force.

A recent article suggests the airport will not be closed.  https://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/ct-xpm-2007-06-02-0706010981-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=22

KPWK?  If the FAA has provided any funds to the airport, the closure may be impeded by the feds.  Of course that didn't stop the midnight closure of Meigs Field.


text:
When can spoilers be used on airliners?
On airliners, are spoilers used in any part of flight other than landing?

Spoilers have many uses, but first I want to distinguish types of spoilers.  Airplanes will typically have ground spoilers and flight spoilers and they work like they sound.

Ground spoilers only open up on the ground -- these are usually much more detrimental to lift than the flight spoilers.
Flight spoilers open when actuated by the pilots

Another type of spoiler is the spoileron, which is used on some airplanes like an aileron, that is to bank the airplane by destroying lift on one wing.
Since you ask about use in the air, I will focus on flight spoilers.  When would I use flight spoilers?

I want to descend faster
I want to slow down quicker
I want to descend and slow down

I want to descend faster
This can be broken down into three categories

I screwed up and I need to make a crossing restriction
The anti/ice system turned on (more on this below)
I am initiating an emergency descent (abnormal)

The bit about a/ice comes from the fact that on many airplanes when a/ice is on there is a high demand for bleed air.  In the EMB-145 the FADEC bumps up idle thrust quite a bit to meet this demand and if you did not anticipate this in your descent planning, we were authorized to use our spoilers in icing conditions to aid in the descent.  This could be interpreted as an "I screwed up" case, but really isn't in my opinion.
I want to slow down faster
If there is a charted speed restriction, this may be useful.  Particularly if you have just prioritized the descent to meet a crossing restriction and now need to bleed off speed.
You might need to start descending out of 10k feet ASAP, and need to be at 250 kts to do so, and in this case spoilers can be useful.
I want to descend and slow down
In a jet, this can be hard when clean.  Often the choice is descend or slow down.  When you need to do both, spoilers can be a great help.

In the case of landing or rejected takeoff, all of the spoilers (including flight spoilers) should deploy automatically on most airplanes when the thrust levers are moved to idle, there is weight-on-wheels and you are above some threshold speed.
In addition, spoilers are useful in some airplanes for roll control, in addition to airplanes with pure spoileron roll control.  I didn't spend much time on this topic as like the ground spoilers in landing and RTO, these are passive from a pilot point of view -- you aren't specifically controlling these spoilers, the flight control system is doing it for you.  In any case, the spoilers used for roll control are quite important during flight.
As you can see, spoilers have many uses in flight and not just for landing.

Spoilers are also used for roll control (and I'm not talking about spoilerons). See also this question

@PhilippeLeybaert: A spoiler that is used for roll control is called a spoileron. Therefore you are talking about spoilerons (unlike flapperon, which is an aileron that also acts as flap, spoileron is any spoiler used for roll control, not an aileron acting a spoiler).

Normally the same set of surfaces act as both flight and ground spoilers and possibly spoilerons. They just deflect less in flight.

@JanHudec That depends on the airplane.  In the EMB-145 (I am most familiar with this airplane) the there were separate spoiler panels that only actuated on the ground and were not used at all during flight.  But you are correct that in other aircraft it may just be a mater of max deflection that differentiates the use case.

@JanHudec No I'm not talking about spoilerons. Many airplanes have normal ailerons but use regular spoilers for roll control in certain phases of flight (like final approach)

@PhilippeLeybaert: If spoilerons are spoilers that are used for roll control, the dual function spoilers still fit that definition. Unless you say spoilerons are spoilers that are used only for roll control, which I've not seen in any of the descriptions.

@JanHudec Correct, and I think we agree, but from a slightly different angle. My interpretation of a spoileron is a spoiler that is the only means to control roll (so without ailerons) and is dedicated to that task. I was referring to regular spoilers that seem to have a multiple functions: create drag, dump lift and roll control (acting as a spoileron).

@PhilippeLeybaert Spoilers that are used in conjunction with ailerons during low speed flight are still called spoilerons.  (They are on the Learjets that I used to fly.)

And what if these spoilerons are also used as "real" spoilers. Are they still called that? Potato Potato :)

@PhilippeLeybaert: potayto, potahto... ;) Anyway, Airbus documents don't ever call them spoilerons, for another point of view.

In my time, oh so long ago, the devices shown in the image accompanying the question were called speed brakes. Don't know what the manuals said. I do know that if you deployed them just a tad on the 727, that gave you extremely responsive ailerons. Always wanted to do that and roll the airplane, but never did.

@Terry Speed brakes primarily create drag, while spoilers primarily disrupt the ability of the wing to create lift. In practice we use them in the same way, but they accomplish our goal in different ways.

@PhilippeLeybaert Yes, actually. On the Lear's they were called different things depending on how they were being used.  Spoilerons while in the air and assisting roll control, and spoilers when deployed on the ground! :)

This question is over a year old now, but to your I want to descend faster section could be added: ATC hung me out to dry or ATC forgot about me or ATC....

Certainly! Spoilers are used whenever there's a need to descend a little faster than the aircraft will with idle engines and just flying downwards with it's own drag. This happens quite often. Pilots will try to avoid it since it's not efficient use of fuel, but they usually can't in busy airspace where stuff happens quickly and there are fixed procedures to follow.

In fact if I remember correctly, many spoilers don't have speed limits so that they can be used in all stages of flight.
They are also used for rejected takeoffs (RTO). Spoilers work by disabling the lift, so the more they are deployed, the more lift is reduced. This helps the descend, or puts more pressure on the wheels on the ground making the braking action more effective during landings and RTOs, especially when the ground is slippery.


text:
What are the US flight planning regulations for an alternate airport?
As I read 14 CFR 91.169 literally, I understand an alternate airport listing waiver can be granted if the destination airport

Has at least one instrument approach procedure from an authorized source.
reports/predicts within ETA ± 1 hours, ceiling 2000 or higher, 3 SM or greater (1-2-3 Rule)

Q1) So one case, If we plan an IFR flight to an airport without any IAP, even if the whole area is SKC, we are legally required include an alternate airport?
As for the alternate airport qualifications, I get the following following flow,

Is there any weather reporting or forecast service at this airport?
Yes, Go to Step 2
No, return Unqualified Alternate.
Does the weather good enough for basic VFR descend from MEA, approach and landing at ETA?
Yes, return Qualified Alternate
No, Go to Step 3.
Does the airport have an IAP?
Yes, Go to Step 4
No, return Unqualified Alternate.
Is your airplane WAAS-equipped?
Yes, include GPS approaches in your candidate IAP pool. Go to Step 5
No, remove all GPS approaches from your candidate IAP pool. Go to Step 5.
Remove any IAP with unmonitored or inoperative equipments from your candidate IAP pool. Go to Step 6.
Find the alternate minimums for each IAP in your candidate IAP pool from Step 5, or if no alternate minimum is published apply 600-2 for precision approach and 800-2 for non-precision approach. Go to Step 7.
Compare the your lowest minimums from Step 6 with the weather report or forecast at alternate airport. Is your lowest minimums greater than the weather minima?
Yes, return Qualified Alternate.
No, return Unqualified Alternate.

Q2) Does this flow reflect the current FAA alternate airport requirements?
Q3) In an actual approach to the alternate, can we first attempt an approach that is different from the one we used to satisfy the alternate weather minimum planning requirement? (the one selected from Step 7 for lowest minimums). Technically, The IAP to use is not a required part of a flight plan.

It is important to point out that what follows only applies to flying under §91. Operations under §135 have a different set of requirements for alternates than those specified here in §91.169. Your question includes the general-aviation tag, which is poorly defined (at no fault of your own); the tag description given on this site includes all civil aviation other than §121 airline flights, but many definitions exclude charter, or even all §135 flying. In what follows I will assume flight operations conducted exclusively under §91.

Q1:
Yes, that is correct. An alternate is always required on the flight plan unless—among other things—the first airport of intended landing has an instrument approach prescribed under §97 or otherwise authorized.
Weather conditions also determine that exception.

Q2:
This is mostly true, but needs some corrections and clarifications.

There is no requirement for the airport to have weather reporting or forecast based at or provided specifically for that airport. The regulation merely requires "appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts". This could include weather information such as Area Forecasts or even TAFs or METARS for nearby airports.

Yes, this is accurate.

Yes, this is true when understood within the programing–type flowchart logic you use. However, just to be clear, lack of an IAP alone does not disqualify the airport as an alternate—see #2 and §91.169(c)(2).

No, not necessarily. AIM 1-1-18(b)(5)(c) clarifies that operators with non-WAAS equipped GPS systems can plan to use a GPS approach at either their destination or the alternate, but not both:

(c) For flight planning purposes, TSOC129() and TSOC196()-equipped users (GPS users) whose navigation systems have fault detection and exclusion (FDE) capability, who perform a preflight RAIM prediction for the approach integrity at the airport where the RNAV (GPS) approach will be flown, and have proper knowledge and any required training and/or approval to conduct a GPS-based IAP, may file based on a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. At the alternate airport, pilots may plan for:
(1) Lateral navigation (LNAV) or circling minimum descent altitude (MDA);
(2) LNAV/vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) DA, if equipped with and using approved barometric vertical navigation (baroVNAV) equipment;
(3) RNP 0.3 DA on an RNAV (RNP) IAP, if they are specifically authorized users using approved baroVNAV equipment and the pilot has verified required navigation performance (RNP) availability through an approved prediction program.

Note: TSOC129 and TSOC196 are the non-WAAS TSOs (as opposed to the WAAS TSOs: TSO-C145 and TSO-C146)

Yes, this is seen in AIM 1-1-18(b)(3)(b):

Ground-based facilities necessary for these routes must be operational.

Yes, this is true.

Yes, though I would say equal to or greater.

Q3:
Yes, the filed alternate—and the approach used to qualify it—are for legal filing purposes. In the actual flight, another appropriate approach, deviation airport, or approach at the deviation airport can be selected as needed.

According to 91.169, if the weather meets Basic VFR minima, you don't need an instrument approach to list it as an alternate.

91.169(c)(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97
  of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been
  issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate
  airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent
  from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.

There are also restrictions to GPS approaches at alternate airports.


text:
Can a commercial pilot fly passengers for hire without an air carrier certificate?
I have my private multi instrument and almost done with my commercial multi. A collegiate school's football team has requested that I fly the coaches (2-4) to their away games and other travel events throughout the year. Once I receive my certificate, am I legally permitted to fly them for hire without needing an operator's certificate? Maybe through a contract agreement?

Who owns the airplane?

If you are referring to the USA with the regulating body being the FAA, this link will give you your answer. All text below came from this site:
http://www.cfidarren.com/cpinfo.htm
Here is the answer I think you are looking for:

If your customer approaches you, with his own airplane (either he rented it himself, or he owns it).  In this case you may fly for hire, because you are not offering your services as a package or "holding out" as a commercial operator -- air taxi or charter.

Answer details:

Commercial Pilot Certificate
A certificated Commercial Pilot is paid for services as a pilot, provided you meet the qualifications which apply to the type of operations you are doing.  Some of this flying is  controlled by Part 91, but most commercial flying is controlled by Part 119, 121, 125, 129, and 135.
Do I need a new medical certificate?   To exercise your commercial pilot privileges, you must get a new medical (at least 2nd class) every year.  If your 2nd class medical expires (and becomes a 3rd class), you cannot exercise the privileges of a commercial pilot.
What can I do with a commercial certificate?    The following are things commercial pilots can do under part 91 -

Local scenic flights within 25sm of departure airport.
Ferry Flights
Crop Dusting
Banner Towing
Aerial Photography
Fire fighting
Go on to earn your flight instructor certificate

Can I fly people around for money?  You can certainly be paid for being a pilot with a Commercial Pilot Certificate.  You may work for an Air Carrier certificated under Parts 119, 135 or 121.  You may not be the Air Carrier conducting the business without getting an Air Carrier Certificate.  When you offer a package (airplane, price, pilot), you are no longer operating under Part 91 and would need an Air Carrier Certificate. An example would be "Can you fly me to Atlanta?"   If you provide the aircraft, you need to have an Air Taxi Commercial Operator certificate under Part 135.  There are different rules regarding maintenance, airworthiness requirements, crew member qualifications, and expanded VFR and IFR equipment lists that make Part 135 very different from Part 91.
So the answer is NO, you cannot fly people around for money.  A Commercial Pilot Certificate simply allows a pilot to be PIC engaged in a commercial operation (airline) that has an Air Carrier Certificate.  A pilot certificate does not entitle the holder to become a commercial air-taxi operator.
If your customer approaches you, with his own airplane (either he rented it himself, or he owns it).  In this case you may fly for hire, because you are not offering your services as a package or "holding out" as a commercial operator -- air taxi or charter.

The last two sections (at least) of this answer are probably irrelevant to the question, and the remarks about US citizenship are wrong. TSA approval isn't required for commercial training (maybe it was in the past, I don't know).

I can edit the last couple of sections out - left them in for context. I figured they might answer related questions that someone looking at this question may have.

Thanks for your answer but I forgot to mention that yes they have they're own (rental) aircraft, if that makes a difference.

@Blake.W sounds like this answer (the yellow quote) is what you are looking for then.

@Blake.W Assuming that this is a question about the US/FAA then please tag it as such or edit the question itself to add that information. It's always important to know the jurisdiction for questions about regulations.

Appreciate the edits to the answer I gave - I just was logging in to make those changes between meetings at work and I can see it is all set! :)

If you are providing the airplane to transport the coaches:
You are a commercial operator and require an operating certificate under part 119 to fly under part 135.
If the coaches have an airplane (rental or owned) and are simply hiring you to fly it for them:
You may provide your pilot services and act as PIC of their airplane and be paid while transporting the coaches as allowed under 61.133.

Your commercial pilot privileges are laid out in 14 CFR 61.133.

§61.133   Commercial pilot privileges and limitations.
(a) Privileges—
(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
(i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and
(ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.

This says that a commercial pilot you may be paid to act as pilot of command.
To constrain this, you must also look at 14 CFR 119.1.  The important part to look at herei s 119.1(e):

(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to—
(1) Student instruction;
(2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under §91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of this chapter apply unless excepted in §136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this chapter, as applicable, apply.
(3) Ferry or training flights;
(4) Aerial work operations, including—
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;
(v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and
(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;
(5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons;
(6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations.
(7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of takeoff if—  [snip]
(8) Operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter or 375 of this title;
(9) Emergency mail service conducted under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or
(10) Operations conducted under the provisions of §91.321 of this chapter.

When you put those together you can always be paid to be PIC but if you provide the airplane and become an operator, then there is a very small list of things you can do without an operating certificate.


text:
When are procedure turns not required?
Today, at my part 141 flight school I failed a stage check (flight test), because I did not perform a hold. I'm in com-multi training and was shooting a single engine approach in a Beechcraft Baron. I was inbound from the SSW preparing to shoot the GPS 01 approach. I knew the AUGIE route said "no pt", however, because I was a straight in approach, I believed that the hold was not required. So I started the approach at the BEJCY (IAF) rather than turning off course.
The examiner failed me right then and there. After the flight, he told me the ONLY time a hold/procedure turn is not required is where a "no pt" route is published.
Aren't there other circumstances that relieves a mandatory hold/pt?

The correct thing to do very much depends on the clearance that you were given.
If you were simply cleared direct to BEJCY and cleared for the approach, then your instructor is correct and you should have completed the procedure turn as charted.
If the clearance included the words straight in (i.e. "cleared for the straight in GPS 01 approach"), then you could not perform the procedure turn even if you wanted to, without getting permission first.
If you are receiving radar vectors to final (i.e. "Fly heading xxx, cleared for the GPS 01 approach") or if you are doing a timed approach from a holding fix then you may not perform the procedure turn either.
There are also charts that have notes saying "NOPT for arrivals between radials xxx and xxx." or similar, which would also preclude you from performing the procedure turn under the appropriate conditions.
By default, the procedure turn is required if depicted unless there is a specific reason not to or you coordinate with ATC and receive an amended clearance.
As always, you may deviate from a regulation to the extent necessary in an emergency, but if you were using your emergency authority to skip the procedure turn you should have mentioned that to your examiner prior to commencing the approach.  In a real emergency, you should coordinate with ATC if/when it is possible and safe to do so.
The AIM says:

5 − 4 − 9. Procedure Turn and Hold − in − lieu of Procedure Turn
a. A
procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate
or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is
a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless
cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach. Additionally, the procedure
turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is
depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the
final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach
from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is
a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound
course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified
in the profile view. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern
direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg
length/timing must not be exceeded.
NOTE −
The pilot may elect to use
the procedure turn or hold −in−lieu−of−PT when it is not required by
the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC.
If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a
procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight −in
approach, the pilot must immediately request clarification from ATC
(14 CFR Section 91.123).

Memonic SNoRT-Hold: Straight-in, No PT, Radar vectors, Timed approaches, Holding-in-lieu-of. So the comment about "only a 'no pt' note" is wrong, but these other exceptions don't seem to apply to your situation, unfortunately.

Okay, that makes sense. It's a tad challenging to keep up with the ifr regs with everything com multi training throws at you. Thanks!

@Blake.W Indeed, I always say that the regulations are the hardest part of flying and require the most attention in order to stay legal.  Of course, staying safe needs to be the top priority, but very rarely is it safer to do the illegal thing....

@MichaelHall Understood.  I think that we should strive for the same, but as you know it requires coordination on the civilian side!  I'll go ahead and delete my comments as well.

This is a good scenario from which a lot of people can learn. This is a situation where both the student and the examiner were wrong. It's common for pilots to get into the mindset that ATC always knows best and you just have to comply with whatever they say. Granted, ATC usually does know best, but anytime you are unsure if a clearance would be safe for you or if you can even comply with the clearance, you must refuse that clearance and request an amended clearance. This is during all operations, normal and emergency.
It's also common for students to become slaves to the memory aids to lists of things they are required to do, such as flying a charted holding pattern. What you must do however is always keep your brain turned on and think about your situation. In the situation you describe, your primary goal was to conduct a safe operation. As the PIC, you are allowed to deviate from regs and established procedures at your discretion in the interest of safety and to the extent required to meet the emergency. But you have to do two things: 1) declare an emergency and 2) tell ATC what you're doing. I'm assuming you did the first, but you didn't do the second.
So you should have failed - not because you didn't enter the hold - but because you didn't adhere to your clearance! All you had to do was get a different clearance. And since you were an emergency aircraft, you didn't need to make it a "request" either. You just state what you're going to do: "Baron 34P will be making a straight in approach." Period. End of issue. In that regard, your examiner was quite wrong to suggest that flying the holding pattern was either "required" or the correct thing to do under the circumstances. So he failed you for the wrong reason. In fact, had you entered that hold during an airline sim check, you'd be failed for unsatisfactory judgement.
Flying a hold in this case simply cannot be defended from a risk-management standpoint because (provided that you're not too high at the holding fix to safely continue the approach) it is poor judgement and poor decision-making. Flying around on one motor is not a good time to be spending extra time in the air. Consider also that if you are flying an instrument approach in MO, it's probably winter time and you're probably picking up some ice on that Baron. Remember that YOU are the pilot-in-command. The FAA makes lots of to-do about your responsibility as PIC. Keep in mind, provided along with that responsibility is your authority to make decisions, including deviating from rules during an emergency. Just keep ATC informed of your plans, and they will accommodate you.

Very good point about the emergency condition, since one engine was "out" (probably throttled back by the examiner). But in general the statement that you should communicate with ATC holds true, whenever you are not sure if you should hold or not, etc. Yours is the best answer so far. It is entirely correct that you never have to accept an ATC clearance, but once you do you are required to follow it until amended.

Only a controller, no flying experience, but your answer seems very dangerous and incorrect (at least in a general sense). Surely a pilot reacting to an emergency can do anything they deem reasonable before advising ATC, yes? "Aviate, navigate, communicate." Telling them soon is always desirable, and the pilot will be held to account for their actions at some point later, but saying "You must declare an emergency out loud or you can't react to it" doesn't seem reasonable.

Yes, the order in which you do it isn't important. If you have an engine failure on takeoff, you'll be busy for a bit. The important thing is that you declare your intentions as you are able. In the case of just stating you'll fly it straight in, you've loads of time for that. In a real emergency when lives are on the line, you can be forgiven for silence as long as your actions were appropriate. But on a checkride?  Maybe, maybe not.  At least you have arguments you can make during debriefing.  You are right though - the radio call doesn't have to come first.  Didn't mean to imply that.

Since an answer above already explains the conditions whereby you don't require a procedure turn, here's a mnemonic device to remember:
S.H.A.R.P.T.T

S - Straight in approach
H - Holding in lieu of a procedure turn
A - Arc
R - Radar vectored to final app course
P - NoPT depicted on chart
T - Timed approach
T - Teardrop course reversal

I would argue that a teardrop entry and HILPT do not belong as they would not be displayed along with a procedure turn.  Most DME arcs have a NoPT verbiage.  Heck, the other four would be reasons not to do a HILPT or teardrop entry.

I agree with beard.  Your list is double-dipping arc, holding, and teardrop with "No PT" tags because arcs are labeled as such and teardrops and holds can be considered a PT in and of themselves.

Having not been through civilian IFR training, is it emphasized that the you need to hear the words "straight in" from ATC even if you are executing a straight in?  In other words, would ATC intentionally omit these words, and in doing so expect you to make a turn in holding for the express purpose of course reversal even if you are established on course?  (without assigning you a turn in holding for spacing?)

Being in that you were an "Emergency Aircraft" (engine failure) situation it could be argued that you did the safer thing under PIC Emergency authority. However, you likely should have stated that to the examiner at the time initiating the approach without the PT.

I think your Examiner needs an examination. The AIM says "when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course." You were straight in, no course reversal was necessary AND you were single engine. Doing a procedure turn would NOT be the safest course of action. This topic has caused a lot of angst and requires clear communication of expectations with ATC. Many Controllers will tell you doing a course reversal when one is not necessary could cause traffic problems. Best to query the controller and hear (and have recorded) "cleared straight in for the approach" or words to that effect. The key is being “aligned with the final approach course.” Some new TAA RNAV approach plates resolve this issue with a No PT arc instead of only labeling select fixes.

Welcome to the site!  Your answer may be better received by the community you provide some sources for what you say.

Here is a good source: it says you should clarify with ATC whether or not you should do the procedure turn in such instances. http://www.faraim.org/aim/aim-4-03-14-351.html

So, the beginning of the sentence that this answer quotes from the AIM says "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when..." as in, that's when the procedure designer includes it.  This doesn't mean that the pilot gets to decide when to use it and when not to.  The rest of the paragraph goes on to provide more details on when the procedure is and is not required.  I completely agree with you though that coordinating and clarifying with ATC is always the way to go if you aren't sure what they are expecting or you want to do something different.

Examiner is wrong period.  You got a pink slip you didn’t deserve.  Why would anyone take a lap in a hold when you are established on a straight in approach out side the fix, especially on one engine.

Actually, the examiner is correct. Holds in lieu of a procedure turn depicted on IAP are required unless you are cleared straight in, receiving radar vector to a FAF,  or a ‘NoPT’ is listed for a feeder route from an IAF. See AIM 5-4-9.